COD Ghosts: Driftor - New Multiplayer Footage

YellowGeeHawd wrote:

Spartan Runnerr wrote:

and that silenced 1911 style pistol (Fearcrads vid) looks AWESOME!!!!

Good, Sparty and I can still be douches and run around with pistols.

What really scares me is i havent seen one screen or vid with a riot shield!!!!???? I MUST have my turtle shell + hatchet/C4.

Those clips from Faze are not QSing, those are just great snipers, most of the time he's acting like I would expect a sniper to act, and engaging mid-long range targets.  Those are the gunbattles where a sniper is supposed to have the advantage.  As long as running around like they have an SMG isn't possible then I don't have a problem with sniper rifles, its not easy to hit those shots.

But with the # of flanking routes on these maps spawn traps are not going to be as easy as the three alley maps that currently make up the majority of COD maps now.  I think that its might be more difficult for us running as a full party to lock down a map with power positions.  It might not be as easy to rack up big killstreaks sitting on a chokepoint like you can in BO2.

Does anybody know if the Tac insert is back?  If they eliminate that since its used primarily by boosters and spawntrappers, combined with slower movement speed I don't think snipers will be much of a problem.  Also, Driftor said that movement is momentum based, so that means that the crazy halo jumping probably doesn't work like BO2.  And with dolphin dive gone, to be replaced by the knee slide dropshot is out(sorry Baller).  Seems to me like they are trying to get rid of some the quirky game mechanics that have been exploited in the last several games.  I'm going to give them the benefits of the doubt and am excited to give it a try.

I dont' know what can be done about latency...the internet is out of their control.  My internet goes from decent pings of 35ms ping to google.com, but sometimes its 150ms to google.com some evenings(I ususally don't play when its like that).  What can a game possibly do when the internet ping times are so dynamic?  Okay, DS might help some, but I'm at a loss here...the standard response you get is that Activision are money whores.  Mostly from the BF players who are PAYING TO RENT SERVERS, while I can play a COD game for FREE for as long as I want to(who's the money whore?).  I guess it might be nice to have DS for the first year, to transition to P2P after that.  
But with our clan spread out all over the US what region should we rent the server in?  Your ping to that server will dictate your game experience too.  If you live down the street from it you'll love it, if you live all the way across the country you'll hate it.

Sorta off topic...

I love watching the old school style snipers. Somebody posted a vid the other day of some pro and he was sniping and destroying everybody. I think I saw him QS like once the whole time.

Really impressive. No using game mechanics flaws/tricks. He was just fast and good.

The veggie was super jealous as I can't snipe for shit.

Bluehound, I would rather pay for a dedicated server like Battlefield than play free in the CoD p2p connection sewer.  You get what you pay for.  That defense is no different than me saying I got to play PS3 for free and 360 folks had to pay.  It is correct, and paying the money for the service was worth every penny because the experience is significantly better.

I will let the more seasoned Battlefield vets discuss the details of the DS setup.  But I know that at any time of the day I can turn it on and go pick any available server out there at no cost.  And while my internet might fluctuate at times, my connection to the game does not rely on the connection of the random person in the random lobby that I am arbitrarily placed in.

You see, it isn't the internet's fault (despite the typical bullshit that Vondeharr is shoveling).  The fault lies in the style of the game Treyarch/IW/Sledgehammer have created and what they have done with it.  CoD is fast paced, high action and kill quick.  It has the shortest time to kill in any game I have played and that creates a game that is significantly more latency sensitive.  When we all have good connections the game is great and one that I will play every day.  When the connection is bad, which is more often than not these days, it is terrible.  When I am pinging 26 to a server in Dallas, or 56 to LA & NYC, yet 3 barring and skipping all over the map there is something significantly wrong.

We know that everyone in the country has different internet speed and very few have GREAT ISP's.  We also know that internet speeds & pings fluctuate.  They know it too and it is up to them to find a way for it to function given all the known conditions.  Dedicated servers will not cure all that ails this franchise but I will make it a hell of a lot better.  The is still hope though.  They haven't ruled it out and hopefully they can find a way to harness "the infinite power of the cloud" and do what is right.  At least we know the real Infinity Ward will be using dedicated servers in their game *cough* Respawn

I agree with most of what Blue said.BF3 servers are all dedicated servers, not just private servers. Even the public servers are dedicated to what region you wanna play in.

Actually I saw an image of the gear and I didn't see a TAC. I saw a Trophy System, Flash, Smoke and stun. There was one more nade but it didn't look like a TAC. It may be out...

I saw something in a vid that did look like a tac flare and I'll post it when I get home. As for DS on BF3. I play with members all over the country and the connection always feels the same regardless of which region the servers are in.

^^^This... and you dont have to pay to play BF3 online.  That's ONLY if you want to rent your own server and set all the maps/rules.  Otherwise there are official servers all over the place that sit dormant waiting for player owned ones to keel over.

Regarding DS/P2P



Dedicated

Dedicated servers simulate game worlds without supporting direct input or output, except that required for their administration. Players must connect to the server with separate client programs in order to see and interact with the game.[1][2]
The foremost advantage of dedicated servers is their suitability for hosting in professional data centers, with all of the reliability and performance benefits that entails. Remote hosting also eliminates the low-latency advantage that would otherwise be held by any player who hosts and connects to a server from the same machine or local network.[1]
Dedicated servers cost money to run, however. Cost are sometimes met by a game's developers (particularly on consoles) and sometimes by clan groups, but in either case the public is reliant on third parties providing servers to connect to. For this reason, most games which use dedicated servers also provide listen server support.[1]
Dedicated servers are inefficient for games which only support low player counts (e.g. a RTS game typically played 1v1).


P2P

In the client/server model outlined elsewhere in this article, clients receive processed data from the server and display it without much thought. In the alternative "peer-to-peer" model there is no server: each "peer" instead receives the raw input streams of each other player and determines the results itself.[4]
Peer-to-peer is generally considered obsolete for action games, but it still common in the real-time strategy genre due to its suitability for games with large numbers of tokens and small numbers of players. Instead of constantly transmitting the positions of 1000 troops, the game can make a one-off transmission of the fact that 1000 troops are selected and that the player in command of them just issued a move order.[4]
However, peer-to-peer has many disadvantages:[4]
It is very difficult to keep all peers synchronised. Minute differences between peers can escalate over time to game-breaking paradoxes.
It is very difficult to support new peers joining part-way through a game.
Each peer must communicate with all other peers, limiting the number of connected players.[3]
Each peer must wait for every other peer's message before simulating the next "network frame", resulting in all players experiencing the same latency as the player with the worst connection. -Via Wiki



So... yes, we wan't dedicated servers if we can get 'em.  The BIG reason we're seeing all of this "i fucking shot the guy and he didn't die" or "he came around the corner and i didn't see him" is because the "time to kill" (and do other things) has become so quick/short that it is just about faster than the speed which our xboxes can communicate with each other and share information... thus leading to the WTF moments and lag compensation.
Dedicated servers cut this time by (some figure, i can't remember) a % so things run smoother.  That and the ping is always constant b/c the host is not switching around.  You find a good server close to you with a good ping... join it and you'll have a great experience.

deadmyt wrote:

I saw something in a vid that did look like a tac flare and I'll post it when I get home. As for DS on BF3. I play with members all over the country and the connection always feels the same regardless of which region the servers are in.

We play on a Europe server everyday with the EUK30 guys.Guess what? No Lag.Dedicated servers are the best thing since sliced bread.My ping to Ireland is like 190 ms, but yet I see no lag.

Wow.

I didn't know Titanfall was going to be on dedicated servers. That is confirmed Nuke? If so, this thing sounds better and better all the time.

And yeah, the internet is the internet. Everybody knows what the deal is with that.

I have a very average ping/dl speed for the US.

typically my dl speed is 12-16 mbps when I test it. Ping will vary from 30s to 70s even to the same server on the same day at different times.

Some people have better (most), some have worse (BlackDeath).

In CoD, your ping is associated with my connection which will change during a 10 minute match many times to you if I'm the host.

Even those with great connections have large fluctuations of ping/latency/down/up speeds with the other members of the lobby during the match when they host.

Servers are typically located right on the backboke and have ultra stable connections (as stable as they can make them). Your connection to it will fluctuate but not like it would connecting to me.

There are still connection advantages in games like BF. Guys closer to the server with better internet access will have an advantage over others like me. But, it won't flop around mid match......if you find you are in a lobby where connections are bad for you in BF3, you just pick a different server and hope you are better matched connection wise vs. the competiion in relation to the server which will be stable.

I won't go from not being able to kill anything one second to running through some poor guys bullets to kill him one minute later in the same damn match. The guy killin me due to being ahead in BF.....will just be ahead of me most likely, period. At least on that server. Overall it just makes the game feel less connection oriented.

Two guys going at it with one having a ping 40 to the server and one having 60 won't seem so bad most the time. But without the server their pings are to some unstable player connection where everything is in constant state of change connection wise to this guy. Even if you and the other player have ultra stable connections to the internet if he flips his ping to one of you then the connections will seem to change (they will) even mid gunfight......

It may just be one of my stoopid ideas again but if owned a dedicated server on any game like BF or COD could i just sell advertising like on some of the maps "Express comes to mind" it has moving billboards and a soundtrack.

I sure as hell wouldn't mind a coke advertisement on the wall as i splatter some dude blood and guts all over it, hell you could charge out the ass if your ads appear all over Youtube.

Is it even possible?

Sign in to your fav server and the new commercials will run wherever they are on the map?

Killcam brought to you by Depends adult underwear "for that death you didn't see coming and now you have shit in your pants"......next time i'll be wearing my depends!

Ok ok i know, Damn Swollen,what are you on? but is it possible?

@ Nuke, I'll agree that the matchmaking and the host selection for p2p was shit for BO2. There are too many people getting host who's connections are crap, or somebody in their household is streaming netflix, or youtube video while they are trying to host a game. When I'm hosting a lobby the stupid game actually gives me host once in a while, and that ain't right

And the speed of BO2 was crazy fast, when I'd go back to MW3(I should throw in MW2 once again) I couldn't believe how slow it felt in comparison. So that kind of speed exacerbated any latency issues. They want speed and edge if your seat action for these games to attract their audience, but when you have weapons who's TTK is less than the avg human reaction time, and many times its less than the other players ping to host, you're going to have a lot of WTF moments. BF masks the unavoidable latency by have a much slower paced game and longer TTK, no killcams to call BS on. I'm still convinced that the killcam is the single biggest contributor to COD rage there is.

@ Gun, you posted your DS vs, P2P while I was typing my last comment. I don't think that is an accurate portrayal of P2P in COD. My xbox isn't communicating with the other players in the game, its only talking to the host. In COD the "host" is acting as the dedicated server. Sometimes I wonder if the host xbox 360 console has the ability to process all the data coming in fast enough, and that is why they'll claim they get lag even on LAN in those tournaments.

I love you Swollen.

I think we look for Activision to just add in the Advertising though without the servers.

I'm sure Bill Gates will have the xb1 and activistion scanning our living rooms via kinect 2 to find out which ads to put on your particular map ads too.

Too bad they'll just pocket the money and forget the dedicated servers part.

I kid....sorta....

not about lovin ya

bluehound000 wrote:

@ Gun, you posted your DS vs, P2P while I was typing my last comment.  I don't think that is an accurate portrayal of P2P in COD.  My xbox isn't communicating with the other players in the game, its only talking to the host.  In COD the "host" is acting as the dedicated server.  Sometimes I wonder if the host xbox 360 console has the ability to process all the data coming in fast enough, and that is why they'll claim they get lag even on LAN in those tournaments.

It comes down to so many factors man.

But the game needs everybody to "respond" to the host before the next "thing" can happen......sorta. It is really complicated because of the player hosting since he has such a built in latency advantage to the average player in "his" lobby. We don't hear as much about "host pro" anymore for a reason. Used to be the host had a massive advantage and people complained because it really wasn't fair since the way CoD is set up one player can have a huge impact on a match.

So, they gave him some "ping" to himself. Ha ha. Had to do it. Now we need some complicated coding to work all this crap out. They start with a connection test when the match begins. Then, the game starts and those connections are all different 10 seconds later (a little different at least) and they change the entire time the game goes on constantly.

Even servers have fluctuations to your particular connections. If you actually were to ping to me......you would not see the same times you'd get to an actual server that was further from you. I do agree with you about killcams exposing it. Watching killcams will show you how flawed the game truly is at times.

YellowGeeHawd wrote:

Spartan Runnerr wrote:

and that silenced 1911 style pistol (Fearcrads vid) looks AWESOME!!!!

Good, Sparty and I can still be douches and run around with pistols.

I can't remember if it was driftor or Wickedshrapnel who tweeted during the reveal that they watched onlyusemeblade go on a 20 kill streak with the "maniac" perk or whatever....pistols, knifes, maniac, tbags and clam drops...oh my!!!!

Side note i have every intention of trying to create my "Sig" character to pistoleer and stab

bluehound000 wrote:

@ Gun, you posted your DS vs, P2P while I was typing my last comment.  I don't think that is an accurate portrayal of P2P in COD.  My xbox isn't communicating with the other players in the game, its only talking to the host.  In COD the "host" is acting as the dedicated server.  Sometimes I wonder if the host xbox 360 console has the ability to process all the data coming in fast enough, and that is why they'll claim they get lag even on LAN in those tournaments.

From my basic understanding of how COD's (and most others) P2P works... they are indeed communicating with everyone else's Xboxes... they have to. It's not that they're getting the same data from everyone... but varying info depending on each players actions. All players must submit their data before anything can "change" in the online game... in short... you get the latency (basically) of the slowest guy in the room.

(***again, this is all just my understanding/interpretation & i could be as right or wrong as the next guy***)

I have no inside knowledge of it, I just got it from Drit0r's explanation in his video of lag comp.




But from what you copied and pasted:
In the client/server model outlined elsewhere in this article, clients receive processed data from the server and display it without much thought. In the alternative "peer-to-peer" model there is no server: each "peer" instead receives the raw input streams of each other player and determines the results itself.[4]

In other words...there is no "host" But in COD there is a "host" we are all playing on the "host" console, that is why connection is host is EVERYTHING in COD. If you have a 50ms connection to host you have a massive advantage over someone with a 150ms connection to host. The data that you kill a player will get to the host BEFORE the other players data will, SOOO you get the kill, and that is why you can get hitmarkers with shotguns(one shot kill) Your data that you shot the opposing player got to the host after they data they shot you got to the host, so they got the kill, and you were awarded only with damage to the other player.

Many times I've shot a player with a shotgun, turned away and was awarded with the kill half a second later after they ran around a corner...that's lag. It took that much time for my data to reach the host, and for the host to send me the kill data back. I was lucky the other player didn't shoot me because if his data got to the host before mine did, all I'd get would be a hitmarker, and a death.

That is also why you seem to get shot around corners, or why on killcams bullets seem to miss the target, but they got the kill.

Okra, yes.....Respawn (the real Infinity Ward) will be using dedicated servers for Titanfall.

http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/24/4460224/titanfall-xbox-live-cloud-dedicated-servers

At this stage in the game there is absolutely ZERO reason to use anything but dedicated servers other than just whoring out every penny possible while giving your customer a product that is less than what it should be. I fully expect IW to announce that dedicated servers will be added for Xbox One. The cloud is there for a reason and it isn't just to make fish move out of your way. And also the little fact that Ghosts has more pre-orders right now on PS4 than XONE

Yup.. Drift0rs old vid offers a decent explanation... this is a great explanation everyone can understand.




All i really know is i would LOVEEEE Ghosts to go DS!!!!  


Could you guys who play BF3 picture being able to play COD in the same, consistent, quick manner that we enjoy with BF?!?  Shit, that would be fun! haha

bluehound000 wrote:

In other words...there is no "host"  But in COD there is a "host"  we are all playing on the "host" console, that is why connection is host is EVERYTHING in COD.  If you have a 50ms connection to host you have a massive advantage over someone with a 150ms connection to host.  The data that you kill a player will get to the host BEFORE the other players data will, SOOO you get the kill, and that is why you can get hitmarkers with shotguns(one shot kill)  Your data that you shot the opposing player got to the host after they data they shot you got to the host, so they got the kill, and you were awarded only with damage to the other player.

If you have a 50ms connection you would think you have the advantage over the 150ms. CoD's lag compensation is going to try and adjust the 2 players to make them more equal and they do not do a good job of it due to the complexity of the matchmaking. Which is why sometimes I become a 1bar warrior and I kill everything without being seen and my time bending bullets find people around walls.


I think now you are seeing why dedicated servers are significantly better than p2p. With DS your connection is your connection and does not rely on any other player in the match.

gun fer hire wrote:

From my basic understanding of how COD's (and most others) P2P works... they are indeed communicating with everyone else's Xboxes... they have to.  It's not that they're getting the same data from everyone... but varying info depending on each players actions.   All players must submit their data before anything can "change" in the online game... in short... you get the latency (basically) of the slowest guy in the room.

(***again, this is all just my understanding/interpretation & i could be as right or wrong as the next guy***)

Gun, from what I understand you are right in your understanding of how the P2P works in COD but the graphic is wrong. What I understand is that all of the connections are evaluated at the loading screen and the most capable connection (not sure of all that goes into this equation) is made to host. Then all of the non-host boxes send their information to the host box that compiles the data (number wise not graphically) and tells the other boxes what to show as far as who won a gunfight and where the players are.

They must have changed something several months ago because it now seems to be slightly predictive. I used to try to pause short of an opening so that the other players wouldn't see my avatar enter a room before my screen showed me there. What would happen if I didn't is that I would go full-steam into an open door and be dead before I cleared the door.

Over the last several months I've noticed that I will pause prior to the door and not begin my re-acceleration to enter the room (still standing still outside of the opening) but I will be killed by someone who is in the room, down the hall, etc. as if my avatar continued even though I stopped short. In other words, unless I had entered the room there is no way they could have seen me let alone shoot me and I never entered.

there are so many friggin myths surrounding COD's lag compensation/host advantage-disadvantage its ridiculous. And quite frankly it all stems from people who don't know what the hell they are talking about/using wrong terminology that perpetuate them all on internet forums(like this) and youtube. I'll trust Drift0r, he's actually talked...in person...to the devs. Not just some guy on youtube.

Gun, I think that guy in the vid is confusing lag compensation with host advantage....two different things. I remember host pro, whoever pulled host was untouchable because they have 0 ping. And when I pull host in BO2 everyone is at 3 bar typically. I can tell it takes a long time for me to kill someone(it shouldn't if I have 0 ping). So I do think that they assign a delay to the host, but I don't know if its for each individual player, or if it averages it out. But its ONLY for the host, everyone else is prisoner to their ping to host.

Drift0r claims that lag comp=artificial bonus or delay is a myth(he has actually conversed with devs). Lag compensation is about syncing character models with hit boxes, not assigning delays or bonuses based upon ping.

And yes, I'd love DS for COD, so people with poor/overloaded internet don't screw up EVERYONE's gameplays if they pull host.

gun fer hire wrote:

It's funny that this guy states that Halo's time to kill all but eliminates WTF moments and then his video (at 9:25-9:31) shows his buddy hitting someone with a 1 hit kill shotgun and still dying. I guess that having a longer time to kill makes it slightly less likely that two people are one shot from dying and they both shoot the final bullet at one another within a short time from one another.

Any P2P game is going to have these issues, whether the time to kill is an hour or a second, as the final bullet that kills is the one that ultimately counts, but a longer time to kill at least lets the players react.

There is lag comp of some sort in the game no doubt about it.

So, the entire CoD game is being played in a delay so to speak with the engine trying to equalize as much as possible and whatnot.

I keep hearing about netflix and whatnot but that it outside a gamers control. If your neighbor kicks on his internet and you are on cable then your connection just got worse. If the hosts neighbors do it and he has banned all other internet then he has done what he could.

The internet itself is not stable enough to do what CoD is trying to do without seeing what you see in game. Bending bullets is lag comp in action.

The difference lies in the dedicated servers being on the internet backbone and being configured to be "servers" that have very stable, constant connections (due to being built on the network backbone partially). Since there is no "host" then there is no need to have lag comp for the "host" so you aren't playing the entire game in some sort of computer delayed world.

Computer delayed world = I watched the kill cam where I died and it didn't even register my firing one bullet, hell it didn't show me pulling up my gun........because the game went back and "Fixed" what really happened. What really did happen though? Who the fuck knows? The game has to decide somebody won the gunfight and this will be based on a connection test done to start the match when your ping to the host was determined. It is now 45 seconds later and the entire path down the network your packets are taking to the host are traveling a different path......other got cluttered with internet traffic from India or wherever.......this path is shorter so you are winning all the gun battles.......in 30 seconds your ping could change again but the "server/host" has already set your ping for the match.